Let's start with a chart of government revenues and expenditures, starting in 1970:
The US has run a surplus 4 years since 1970, or about 10% of the time. Over those 39 years we've had Republican and Democratic control of both the White House and Congress. This leads to a very simple conclusion: no party can make a legitimate claim to being fiscally responsible.
Above is a chart of the total deficit for each year going back to 1970. First, note (again) only four years show a surplus. This means that for 35 years (and in fact for a longer period) the US has issued debt on a continuing basis to pay for its revenue shortfall. This means the US -- like most US corporations -- has to manage its Treasury operations. All this means is the US Treasury has to decide what maturity of Treasury bond to issue, how much of a particular Treasury bond to issue and when to issue it. Again, this is standard procedure from a corporate finance perspective.
Currently, total US debt is approximately $12.4 trillion and total US GDP is approximately $14.4 trillion. That makes the debt/GDP ratio 86%. While that is not good, it is not fatal.
Above is a chart of total federal outlays as a percent of GDP. Notice the number has been remarkably constant since 1970, fluctuating right around 20% for most of that time.
Let's take a look at the components of federal revenue.
Personal income taxes (the top blue line) comprise the largest percentage of federal tax receipts. In addition, these have continually comprised about 45%-50% of total federal receipts. The biggest change since 1970 has occurred in social insurance taxes (the yellow line), which have increased from a little over 20% to about 35%-40% over the last 10 years. Corporate taxes (the light purple line) have also been consistently responsible for about 10% of total tax receipts. Finally, note that estate and gift taxes (the light blue line at the bottom of the graph) overall contribution is more or less negligible on a percentage basis.
The above chart looks at federal receipts from a percent of GDP basis. Fist, note the percentages have been fairly consistent since 1970. Personal income taxes total between 8%-10% of GDP, corporate taxes total about 2% of GDP and estate and gift taxes account for less than 1% of GDP. The only big change has been an increase in social insurance taxes, which have increased to about 6% of GDP.
The above chart breaks federal spending down into mandatory, discretionary and interest payments. Mandatory spending has increased from a little under 40% of the federal budget in 1970 to right around 60% over the last few years. Discretionary spending has decreased from right around 60% in 1970 to a little under 40% over the last few years. The progression of mandatory spending is at the center of much of the budgetary concern in Washington and the public.Finally, note that interest payments are in fact pretty much under control. The primary reason for this is the near 20 year downward trajectory in interest rates:
Above is a chart of the 10-year CMT (constantly maturing treasury). Interest rates have been dropping for about 20 years. While there is considerable debate regarding the possibility of this continuing, we'll have to wait and see how that plays out.
Above is a chart of mandatory and discretionary spending as a percent of GDP. Interestingly enough, despite the increase in the dollar amount of discretionary spending, it has remained more or less constant on a percent of GDP basis. The recent spike may be the result of the extraordinary budgetary circumstances the country is currently in. Additionally, discretionary spending actually dropped until the beginning of the decade when it started to rise again. Finally, interest payments are under control for now.
Finally, the chart above shows the percentages of SS, Medicaid and Medicare of mandatory spending. The big issue here is clear: note the increase of medicare as a percentage of mandatory spending. It's been increasing for some time.
So, what does all of this tell us about the US budget?
1.) The total federal debt/GDP ratio and interest rate payments (both on a percent to total expenditures and percent of GDP) are manageable at current levels. All of this has been aided by a two decade long decrease in interest rates. It's doubtful that will continue given the current pace of expenditures. Most importantly, given the current rate of spending and debt growth, changes will have to be made once we are out of the recession for sure. And that's where the real political problem lies.
2.) While mandatory spending has remained constant as a percent of GDP, it's increase to about 60% of the current federal budget is perhaps the biggest problem the US faces going forward. And as the percentage increase in medicare payments indicates, medical payments are a primary reason for the problems the country faces at the federal fiscal level.
3.) The argument that the US is taxed to death is wrong. On a percent of GDP basis the US is taxed at moderate rates.
4.) I'm surprised how unimportant estate and gift taxes are to the overall scheme of things. Even before the generous estate tax credit of the last few years (essentially exempting estates worth less than $3.5 million), estate and gift taxes are remarkably unimportant from a total revenues perspective. It's obvious they serve another purpose such as the theoretical prevention of dynastic wealth transfer.

6 comments:
Of course neither party can claim fiscal responsibility, which makes the GOP's current cries particularly hypocritical, not to mention damaging.
They point to the spike and scream that Obama will destroy America. To be clear, I don't trust the guy. All that said, we ARE talking about the worst recession in three generations, and a lot of that spending (read: the stimulus) was one-time. If the government's balance sheets look good but people are out of work. . . well, how is that a good thing?
GDP = consumer spending + capital investment + exports + government spending.
The first is down and only starting to recover, the second had flatlined and the third is a long-running joke. Which leaves government spending. How the heck else do the GOP expect the economy to recover; the same "invisible hand" that sucker-punched our banking system?
All of which is to say, these numbers don't come as a surprise to me. I've known all along that the budget situation isn't good, but it's hardly the disaster the GOP is screaming about when we have far bigger problems to deal with. Obama is basically putting together this panel as a countermove in the political game.
He's stupid. He should've just shown how the 86% debt/GDP figure isn't at historically abnormal levels and left it at that. The Democrats' handling the "Social Security crisis" a few years ago as the non-emergency it was worked. The longer and louder the GOP screamed, the more foolish they looked.
Mind you, I'm a fiscal conservative. I don't like looking at that sky-high deficit. I just note the federal debt numbers are remarkably normal considering how remarkable abnormal the economic situation is.
I disagree w/ one premise Bonddad puts forth. Deficit accretion was less when a Democrat has been in the White House than when Republicans have been. Out of those 39 years, Democrats were in the White House just 12. The 4 years we ran a surplus occured during the latter part of an 8 year period of Democratic leadership. The four years under Carter barely added any national debt. The greatest deficits were run up during a period of Republican control of either the White House alone, or both houses of Congress and the White House. From what I read into the deficit graph, it takes about two years into a new administration for the economic effects of the policies of the previous administration to run their course, and the effects of the new administration to take hold. If that's true, and if the 8-year Clinton tenure in the White House is any guide, we probably won't see the true effects on deficits by the Obama admin until his second term in office, if he gets one.
The four years of "surplus" still includes stealing from Social Security to make that claim. We had a few days of surplus over the past 40 years.
First your study is excellent.I have a problem with the Debt to GDP ratio. Debt is a balance sheet item. GDP is the market value of all goods and services produced in a year. The correct metrics it would seem would be Debt to Nations Net Worth and Debt Service to GDP. You also could add another to measure which is misused by Niall ( Nihil) Ferguson which is Federal Interest Payments to Federal Revenue. Niall Ferguson states countries are really in trouble when Federal Debt Service exceeds 20% of revenue. We are at 8% now.The worst was 14.37% in the second quarter of 1991 and get this ...this ratio was above 10% from 3rd qtr 1981 to the 1st qtr 1999.
I think the claim that neither party can claim to be fiscally responsible is nonsense. Think about it this way:
Democratic president+Democratic Congress (Carter) = near-balance
Republican president+divided Congress (most of Reagan) = politically popular tax cuts resulting in massive deficits (and once the Democrats re-took the Senate, the 1986 tax bill that started to restore fiscal balance
Republican president+Democratic Congress (Bush I) = (read my lips) politically unpopular tax hikes to cut the deficit.
Democratic president+ Democratic Congress (Clinton, 1993-4)= politically unpopular tax hikes that caused the deficit to shrink
Democratic president + Republican Congress (Clinton 1995-2000)= falling deficits, but not because of additional Republican action
Republican President + Republican Congress (Bush II, 2001-6= massive deficits
Republican President + Democratic Congress (Bush II 2007-8) = more massive deficits, largely from the recession and attempts to avert collapse
Democratic president + Democratic Congress (Obama, year 1)= massive deficits to try to turn recession around.
There's no question that the Republicans have used the Treasury to buy elective political tenure. The Democrats may not be pure, but the Republicans are insane.
I say this without partisan motivation. I lean Democrat on fiscal issues because of their fiscal record. I have scorched the party for its gross and willful ignorance about small business, self-employment, and H1-B visas. But in the grand scheme, these are less serious sins than letting the banks loot debtors, then paying them off with tax money. In other words, the two parties might arguably be morally equivalent, but the Democrats are a far less expensive habit.
Your descriptive paragraph of the graph "Percentage Makeup of Tax Receipts" states that estate and gift taxes are negligible, that personal income taxes and corporate taxes are each consistently responsible for 45-50% and 10% respectively and that social insurance taxes have increased from a little over 20% to about 35-40%.
When the social insurance taxes were about 22%, the corporate taxes were around 17%. When the social insurance taxes increased to 42%, the corporate taxes were around 7%. To a certain extent, the social insurance and corporate lines are mirror images - a bump in one matches a dip in the other. However the decrease in corporate percentage is only half the increase in social insurance.
Is or was there some other major component of tax receipts? In 1970, the lines add up to perhaps 88% and by 2009, they add up to somewhere around 94%.
Post a Comment